In the HBO documentary, Shouting Fire, director Liz Garbus addresses the controversies surrounding the fundamental rights contained in the First Amendment.The film focuses on both historical and modern day examples of how this amendment has been used to define society and political debates.
The film's thesis seems to point to the changing interpretations of this amendment as the rights contained in it have undergone varying expansions and contractions.
Based on your reading, class discussions, and viewing of this movie you are to write a review of the film. As you write this review there are a number of things to keep in mind.
1) Don't simply summarize the movie. Instead you are to critically analyze the stories and information contained in it.
2) Your review should focus on the questions raised and answers provided as to First Amendment debates.
3) Make sure your review includes the historical examples provided in the film along with addressing the modern day issues.
4) Finally, make sure your review has a clear thesis or argument.
I feel that this documentary truly exposes the government for who it really is. I feel that the government does not abide by the rights they have given to our citizens. In the video, citizens come together to protest the Republican Party during the elections. As a result the police come and sweep the streets with a tarp-like sheet and arrest hundreds of people. However, in the Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment, it says that citizens can peaceably assemble. These citizens were not using violence but they were arrested. I believe this violates the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAlso in the video, a student in high school wears a t-shirt to school with some writing charged towards homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of his school and how “their school had embraced what God had condemned”. The school suspended him from school and sent a sheriff to talk to him. However, the shirt did not offend any of his fellow students and contained no profanity, yet he was punished for this. I would understand if the shirt contained profanity, but it didn’t. I feel that this completely violates the First Amendment and this personally offends me that he couldn’t speak his mind without being punished.
These are the stories contained in this documentary that really stood out as personally offensive to me. I don’t understand how these instances did not result in punishment of the people “violating” the First Amendment, such as the high school officials responsible for suspending that student.
The author of the movie Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech was Liz Garbus. The author’s purpose of this movie was to inform the viewers of different political debates over the First Amendment. The thesis of this movie is that post-9/11 the government has took unprecedented license to surveil, intimidate, arrest, and detain citizens and foreigners alike. The cornerstone of democracy is Freedom of Speech.
ReplyDeleteBefore 9/11 the percent of people who believed freedom of speech went too far was only 20%. After 9/11 this number rose to 50%. The film compares a historical example: the pentagon papers and a modern example: cases after 9/11. Another historical example used in the film was McCarthyism; the fear of communist. The film also provided modern examples such as Ward Churchill suing the University of Colorado for firing him on remarks he made about the victims of 9/11 attacks that led to a national debate on free speech.
Chase Harper, wearing a shirt about “homosexuality going against what God has condemned,” got suspended from school and the political debate that came up was "should students be allowed to express this or did it disrupt students in the classes?"After the fact, the school decided that no students were disturbed or distracted by Chase Harper’s shirt. I believe this violates the first amendment because it is what he feels and he should be able to express his view on homosexuality.
A modern case after 9/11 was when Debbie Almontaser, the founder and former principal of Khalil Gibran was discriminated against by the New York City DOE on account of her race, religion and national origin. The word intifada was the word that Debbie was asked to define when she wore a shirt that was part of a women’s organization. The word comes from the root word infad in Arabic which means “shake off.”
In the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States the question that arose was “Are Schenck’s actions protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?” The case dealt with the burning of draft cards and by doing so it violated the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Holmes, from a unanimous court stated that the character of every act depends on the circumstances and that Schenck was not protected in this case.
This documentary summarizes the line the of is it a threat to national security or just free speech. Ward Churchill is one of the most important cases involved in free speech. He was terminated for Colorado University for his thoughts on 9/11. The case took a good period of time in searching every word he has ever said or published. He was later terminated from his position at Colorado. He took the case to the Supreme Court and won his case. The case showed that when talking about a matter of national security you cannot be a public official and express a strong opinion about it.
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights has been interpreted in many different ways most of which have been very oppressive. The NYC protesters at the Republican convention are an example of this. They were just using their free speech right and were stopped because the protest might get out of hand. That should be against the free speech right of all American citizens.
The First amendment is interpreted many different ways the free speech clause is one of the most important. It has been tested over time many times. Assembly and religion also have been thoroughly looked over by the Supreme Court. Press is a controversy every day and petition is not exclusively fought over. The first amendment will be fought over still centuries from now and will always differ in opinion each time it is tested.
The government tends to change the interpretation of the First Amendment in certain situations. Many laws and court cases are alternatively broadening and narrowing the amendment's protection of free speech and assembly. The documentary "Shouting Fire," shows the cases of three individuals and one group who are astonished when their expressions of unpopular opinions leave them jobless, suspended, or arrested. "The film's thesis is that post-9/11 the government has seized unprecedented license to surveil, intimidate, arrest, and detain citizens and foreigners alike, said Jessica Grose."
ReplyDeleteFollowing 9/11, Debbie Almontaser was trying to launch a dual-language Arabic-English school in New York in 2007. Due to New York Times twisted remarks about her meaning of 'intifada,' Debbie was forced to resign as the principal of the upcoming New York school. She had no part in the New York 'Intifada' t-shirts that others made. However, Americans prejudged her only because of her appearance. Debbie was an Arab, making the American citizens tie her with being an acquaintance with the World Trade Center terrorists. No one had the right to force her to resign, she has no control on what background she was brought from. America is supposed to be the place of freedom. As the days pass, more restrictions are put on the First Amendment, making it a miracle to even still have the five main rights given throughout it.
McCarthyism is mentioned in this documentary as well. McCarthy tended to cowardly accused people of disloyalty, such as saying they were Communists. Vietnam War protests were mentioned as well. Marching against the war took place during this era. This was seen as "unpatriotic." Even though this went against our entire country, that is the right we are supposed to have here in America unlike most countries.
Ward Churchill suggested that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was not a senseless act, due to this action he was fired as a professor at University of Colorado-Boulder. He has the right to speak his opinion just as everyone does. Even though most of his words were never optimistic, the First Amendment protects this. However, he did not live up to academic standards and was soon charged with plagiarism and other academic misconduct. Still, just because of his negative phrases does not give someone the right to investigate all of his speech's and lessons just to get him in trouble. You have to remember there are 60,000 other professors just like Ward.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteSchools seem to think that they can make up any rules that they would like and completely destroy kids freedom of speech. Chase Harper was suspended because of a shirt that read, "homosexuality is shameful." This is taking away an individual's freedom of speech all together. No one was offended at all, and no one complained about it besides the teacher who sent him down to the office. If one cannot express their own feelings then what does the First Amendment really protect? This movie demonstrates that our freedom is going under attack by various administrators and the government as a whole.
Over 800 people were arrested for marching to end the war. This Republican Convention was stopped after walking five minutes from the World Trade Centers and were all banned from the right to assemble. They were doing no harm to the public, or to anyone. The government claims that they would rather stop things before they happen then do something after it has occurred. However, this situation takes us back to the originality of the First Amendment. If an individual cannot assemble without being arrested then why is this right along with the others still in the Constitution if the government is just going to ban them anyways. All of these cases takes us back to Ward's quote, 'free speech' "if there are consequences then it's not free." He is correct, the government cannot take away our guaranteed rights. Yes, they may be able to limit them but this does not mean to attack them and take them away as a whole. As Americans, if we want our freedom, were obviously going to have to fight for it.
The purpose of Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech was to inform the viewers on the different ways that the First Amendment has been interpreted. Debates over the First Amendment began in 1791, which was when the First Amendment was ratified, and continue to this day. In almost every free speech debate, the government is being challenged because they violated the rights in the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteA historical case that dealt with the First Amendment was the issue of McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a term used to describe disloyalty or treason. Citizens were accused of this during the Red Scare, which was when communism was a big issue, by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Joseph Welch stood up to McCarthy and this became known as the “McCarthy Hearings.” This historical case directly relates to a modern day case involving Ward Churchill. After 9/11, Churchill made comments about the incident and proceeded to say all Americans are “innocent.” Churchill wrote that the 9/11 events were natural and caused because of the U.S. government, and this caused the University of Colorado to investigate. Churchill was accused of research misconduct and treason. This became known as modern day McCarthyism. Ward Churchill filed a law suit against the University of Colorado for firing him unlawfully. Churchill said that they violated his first amendment rights, which was true. Churchill did not violate any right in the first amendment and everything he did was legal. Churchill fought for his rights and later won. The only way to protect free speech rights is if citizens fight for them. How can we have “freedom of speech” if the government continues to try to limit citizens’ rights?
Continued..
Continued..
ReplyDeleteDebbie Almontaser is another victim of violation of first amendment rights. She was accused of being affiliated with a group that supposedly promotes violence. She was not a part of this group, the only reason she was accused of it was because of her religion. The New York Post interview Almontaser and asked her what “intrafida” means. She told them and they published an article saying she was affiliated with that shirt. They twisted her words and attacked her. If she had not said anything about intrafida then this would not have happened. The media asked her if she even believed 9/11 had happened, it crushed her. She has a son in the army that responded to the 9/11 attacks, and no one should have the right to accuse someone of being “non-American” because they are a different race. These accusations caused her to lose her position as principal at the KGIA, a dual language school. This is clearly a violation of the first amendment part dealing with freedom of religion. No citizen of the United States shall be denied rights based on the color of their skin or religion.
In the 1920s court case, Schenck v. United States, the type of speech that can be limited was addressed. Schenck passed out pamphlets that opposed the draft during World War I, he then got in trouble. He sued saying that the United States government was violating his first amendment rights. He was right. There is nothing in the first amendment that says you cannot hand out pamphlets. The government has no right to prohibit Schenck from doing so and that is why Schenck won the case.
There are two more modern issues addressed in the documentary. Chase Harper, a high school student, wore a shirt saying homosexuality is shameful. He was told to remove the shirt or go to the office. He went to the office and was faced with expulsion. The administration said, “If your faith is offensive, you must leave it in the car.” Harper did not understand. How can any student have freedom of speech if they cannot express their faith? A statement that was later said was, “free speech is nothing if the student doesn’t win.” The other case deals with over 1000 people being arrested for protesting. What happened to citizens having the right to peacefully assemble? The protesters were causing no harm, so why were they arrested? The NYPD clearly violated first amendment rights. The arrests did not amount to anything, and the people arrested sued. They won, of course.
There is a constant debate arising, and that is how can the first amendment be limited? In almost all cases mentioned, the person fighting for rights wins. That is because the government tries to take away rights clearly stated in the first amendment. If citizens want to keep their first amendment rights, then they must continue to fight for them each and every day.
This documentary was a prime example of extreme cases of first amendment and the fine line of what is ok and what is not ok in the governments eyes. I found most of the interviews as controversial, but the ones that grabbed my attention the most were Ward Churchill, Chase Harper, and Debbie Almontaser. In these three cases i felt as if the individuals were stripped of there first amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I found the case of Ward Churchill to be so controversial is he was fired for writing an article on the 9/11 attacks. The way he spoke in the movie made him seem like a well educated man with firm beliefs or understandings on the 9/11 attacks. I don't think he should have been ostracized for his unconventional beliefs. Chase Harper the boy who wrote on tape strips on his shirt was clearly just expressing the way he felt. I didnt agree with the school on the grounds of punishing him for sharing his thoughts. Chase even says in the documentary that no other students had a problem with it, just school officials.
Debbie Almontaser got treated wrong because she was fired for something she said that was mistaken. She was describing what the root of a word meant and when the report came out her words were twisted around and it made her seem like a bad person. It gave her a negative reputation. The protesters of the 2004 Republican National Convention were peacefully protesting when they were stopped by the police, herded like cattle onto the sidewalks and blocked by a plastic fence. A treatment which I felt was unfair and ridiculous. They werent even protesting that long so I felt the actions by the police were unjust. I understand the need for heightened security but there has to be a limit.
The national government has changed their interpretation of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment over the years. The appointment of new justices to the Supreme Court is a reason to why the First Amendment has come to be interpreted in many different ways. Shouting Fire, gives its viewers a look at some of the debates over the First Amendment rights and what these rights mean. The film gives a look at different cases and their results. The Supreme Court has ruled in some of the cases in a way that has limited the rights of the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1950’s, Communism was a huge scare throughout America. Americans did not want communists to be walking the streets and spreading Communism in America. Senator McCarthy started to accuse people who he thought were Communists. These people were put on trial and most were charged and sent to jail for trying to spread Communism. These people were persecuted for talking about Communism and wanting a new government, but don’t they have a right to free speech in the First Amendment.
Many more cases concerning the rights of the First Amendment began to occur after the attack on 9/11. Debbie Almontaser was to become the principal of a new Madrassa school in New York. Many saw the opening of the school to be Anti-American. Americans believed that Debbie was a terrorist because she was of the Muslim religion. During the Arab American Heritage Week a group of girls made shirts that said intifada New York. This means the uprising. Many thought that this shirt was connected to Debbie. Debbie began to get questioned and attacked by the media. As a result Debbie had to resign from being principal because of the negative attention that she brought to the school.
Ward Churchill was fired from his teaching job because of comments that he had concerning the war on terrorism. A student at Powry High School was expelled for wearing a shirt that showed hatred towards gays. 800 protestors were arrested in New York from the War Resistors League for protesting against the war. The Patriot Act was passed to allow government access to individuals private information. In all of these cases the government restricted the citizens’ rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. Supreme Court found that the New York Times has the right to publish the Pentagon Papers because freedom of the press is guaranteed in the First Amendment.
The national government has different views and opinions on what the First Amendment is saying. The Supreme Court has ruled in both directions. In some cases they have ruled to limit the rights in First Amendment and in other cases they have ruled that certain actions are constitutional because the First Amendment guarantees them.
In the documentary Shouting Fire the idea that, Americans’ first amendment right, freedom of speech, is being limited and in some ways taken away, is addressed. The government has to protect the nation, but taking away our right to freedom of speech is not the way to do that. Religion and state should be separated but if a student wants to wear a shirt that has something about their religion on it they should be able to practice symbolic speech without fearing they will be punished. Someone should be able to write what they think about and how they feel about a certain topic without the thought, “Will I get in trouble for this?”
ReplyDeleteDuring war time our freedom of speech right is limited, to protect the nation. After the 9/11 attacks the Muslim community felt they were being targeted because everyone in the nation blamed them for the awful events that happened that day. Debbie Almontaser’s resignation from the Khalil Gibran International Academy in NYC was a wake-up call that history repeats its self. Debbie Almontaser was not a terrorist, but because she was Muslim, and was defending a t-shirt that read “intifada" on it people took that action as her defending the terrorists attacks. During the McCarthyism era people were being arrested just because they believed a certain way. Sometimes when people practice their free speech rights it can land them in a place they do not want to be, for instance jail, just because people think they are a threat to the nation.
Symbolic speech is part of freedom of speech protected in the first amendment. When John and his sister Mary Beth Tinker wore black arm bands to school protesting the Vietnam War they were sent home. The Supreme Court ruled the kids were allowed to wear the armbands because it was protected under the first amendment. In a more recent case dealing with symbolic speech, Chase Harper wore a t-shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful” to school and the school was making him take it off. People get offended whether it be what someone says or wears and because of this our freedom of symbolic speech is affected. Chase was not trying to offend anyone he was just saying why he thought and he did not think it was right the school was trying to tell him to take off his shirt. The Supreme Court agreed with Chase and later said his actions were protected.
Sometimes people want to write down their thoughts and feelings about a topic, should they feel like they are doing something wrong? Not at all, this is another example of freedom of speech. Ward Churchill was fired from his job as a professor at the University of Colorado after writing he thought the 9/11 attacks were not a senseless act. This cost him his job for stating his opinion.
We have the right to freedom of speech as citizens of the United Sates. This is by far the most important freedom we have. But the moment someone writes their thoughts down, or protest on the sidewalk our freedom of speech is limited because people get offended. If we want to keep this important right we have to fight for it every day. We cannot let the government stand in our way and take our rights out from under us. Freedom of speech is protected so we must practice it.
“Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech” is a 2009 documentary film based around the First Amendment to the Constitution. The film shows many examples of times when the First Amendment has been challenged. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. However the film raises the argument that our First Amendment rights are not absolute and can be limited in many situations. The film shows that our rights are guaranteed, but not absolute.
ReplyDeleteThe film provides both historical and modern examples of the government. Some historical examples are McCarthyism and the Pentagon Papers. During McCarthyism, Senator McCarthy accused many Americans of being supporters of the communist movement at the height of the Red Scare. This issue threatened freedom of speech, for Americans were being accused based on comments they were making. In the Pentagon Papers case, the New York Times were being sued for publishing confidential files from the Pentagon. This case threatened freedom of the press and what was okay for public publishing.
A modern example would be the case of Chase Harper, who was suspended for wearing a T-shirt that read, “Homosexuality is Shameful.” This case threatened freedom of speech and religion when his principal told him that his religion “must stay in the car if it is offensive to others.” Another case is when Debbie Almontaser was persecuted as the principal of an Arab bilingual school. She claims that her first amendment rights were violated.
Liz Garbus directs a film that exposes the harmful truth to America that their First Amendment rights are not absolute. Although Americans do have the right to speak what they want, there are limits to this right. Although there is not a clear dividing line between what can be spoken and what cannot, speech and press must be limited in certain situations. National security must be protected at the cost of forfeiting some civil liberties. However, Americans must fight for their right to retain freedom of speech so it is not fully restricted. “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech” is a well organized documentary that shows that First Amendment rights are guaranteed, but not absolute.
Are the rights provided by the first amendment really free? The documentary "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech" tells of the many battles of the First Amendment. Free speech is interpreted in an array of different ways which causes many problems. Many wars, court hearings and protest arise in support of free speech or in debate over how speech is often times limited or broadened. Post 9/11 homeland security has been tightened which in some cases limits free speech. Especially in war time. Free speech is key to democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe McCarthy hearings are a key example of the struggle over free speech. In this case McCarthyism was born which is labeling someone as a communist without proper evidence or knowledge. Citizens where trying to exercise the right of free speech and McCarthy was ripping that apart, saying people where communist for protesting against the government. This was a pivotal moment as the fear of communism escalated in the 80's.
Ward Churchhill of the University of Colorado was faced with the battle over academic freedom and free speech in a class room. The University of Colorado fired Churchhill due to "academic misconduct" after searching through all of his speeches an writings. Ward Churchhill has the freedom of speech protected by the First amendment like everybody else does so why should he be fired for his personal writing and speeches, if people didn't want to hear Churchhill's opinion they didn't have to listen to or read his material.
Debbie Almontaser was given the opportunity to open an Arabic speaking school, a place where students could speak English and Arabic. Unfortunately people judged Debbie because of her skin and the fact she was Arabic. She was tied to the tragedy of 9/11, many asked Debbie is she believed the attack happened and she was very thrown off and offended. Many protested the idea of an Arabic school in fear of a hidden agenda the school had. The meaning of intifada and Arabic word was misunderstood and The New York Times jumbled Debbie's meaning of the word. The word has evolved to meaning "uprising." From all the commotion and "Stop the Madrassa" groups Debbie resigned he position as principal of the Arabic speaking school. This is very sad, Debbie should not of had to resign, this school is a wonderful opportunity to diversify America.
Schools are a place to express opinions, grow as a person and find out what you really stand for and who you are. Many students are limited in their school setting because some of the things they have to say may be offensive to other students. With the limitations the students rights granted by the First Amendment are surrendered to school officials.
An example of this would be Chase Harper. This teenager wore a shirt to school reading "homosexuality is shameful" and was suspended because of it. None of the students said anything or complained but the teachers felt it was distracting from learning. I agree, I would have been offended by this act and i believe there is a time and place for everything, school was not the place for this act. But in the other light is right to limit free speech because it is offensive? Absolutely not.
Freedom of assembly is also protected by the first amendment. Police arrested 1,801 protesters outside of the Republican convention. Protesting against to end the war in Iraq, he protesters were doing nothing wrong, and were stopped after five minutes of marching for no reason. The police said all the arrests were to protect everyone.The right to assemble is a basic right given by the constitution, if Americans can't do this without being arrested then is it really free? The struggle for basic rights are still occurring and all Americans must fight for them.
“Congress shall make no law” that takes away from the freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. It is said that without the first amendment, there is no democracy. This is true because a “foundation” cannot be made with something that would not be strong enough to protect our “silent” actions.
ReplyDeleteWars can limit the freedom of speech. Before 9/11, twenty percent of people say that the first amendment goes too far. After 9/11, the percentage increased by thirty percent. The government did improve on suspicion of terrorist after 9/11 but it would have been greater if the government had been ready for it earlier. Showing that you support wars may raise suspicion upon respecting your country.
When Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred communist had entered the United States, the public spurred and tension rose as the hunt for communist was on. It was right that McCarthy told the public about the situation even though they were against him. He believed that it was his right to share what he thought of a beneficial.
“Academic freedom is under attack today.” Ward Church Hill is a professor at the University of Colorado. He was charged with research misconduct was declared guilty with seven academic accounts. He was fired from his job after he post a blog calling the people that died in 9/11 “Little Eichmanns.” This should not have been a case. He was simply exercising his speech rights. The Constitution guarantees the right to express your opinion with regards to public safety although that freedom is not absolute.
Many people come to America thinking that everything is free, but they do not realize that people have to fight for it every day. Debbie Almontaser, a principal of Khalil Gibran International Academy, was criticized after a shirt was made with the words "Intifada NYC." Although it literally means “shaking off,” the armed uprising in the Middle East was linked to it; Debbie didn’t support the t-shirt. She later decided to resign from school principal. The press jumping to conclusions was out of context. She shouldn’t have to resign just because the public thought of her as “against their kind.”
“Freedom of speech is dangerous.” The Alien-Sudation Act is still unconstitutional today. This is prohibits the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater (public safety). Previously in the 40s, the German war took place resulting from this situation.
ReplyDeleteIn Romans, the Bible says that homosexuality is shameful. Chase Harper in San Diego wanted to express his opinion to others so he took a shirt and quoted the Bible text. Even though none of the students complained, it was against school to violate the rights of others. Many people thought that if this boy does not win, there is no free speech in America. Having a trial against you about not being able to say that homosexuality is wrong is like not able to say that watermelon is the best tasting fruit. Chase is being tried because the public might not agree with him.
This situation was the same in the case Tinker v. Des Moines. Mary Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore black arm band with the peace symbol on it to show that they were against war and for peace. Even though the school was against it, the Court found that it was protected by the Constitution. Chase and Mary had a right to show people that they are against something that others believe were true.
The Pentagon Papers was a big problem dealing with freedom of the press. The New York Times said that the public needs to know; if the U.S. prohibits this, they will be violating the first amendment. The New York Times won because the government would have to get injunctions against every newspaper in the country to stop the story. There should have been a limit to the freedom of press, if it is private personal information, like the Pentagon Paper then the press should not have won the right to publish those papers.
Ruth Benn and Ed Hedemann were arrested along with more than a thousand other protesters assembling in New York City during the 2004 Republican National Convention. More people were arrested in Chicago than New York. Although population was a factor, but arrests shouldn’t be made when people are just expressing their opinions and reflecting the different views among the protestors. Only to extreme measures should arrests be made during protest.
Regardless of words or phrases such as "Intifada NYC, homosexuality is shameful,” or simply wanting to share your belief by protesting or blogging should not have been an issue if whether or not it is constitutional or not. It’s your opinion; everyone has one.
The documentary “Shouting Fire” exposes conflicts that are involved with the First Amendment. Liz Garbus has shown the controversy of many modern day examples of the way the First Amendment is deciphered. “Shouting Fire” also focuses on historical controversies of the First such as McCarthyism and the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. Needless to say, this documentary shows how the First Amendment is specified differently, and how people over exaggerate the way they use the rights to benefit themselves, and limit the rights of other American citizens.
ReplyDeleteA professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, Ward Churchill, was asked to write about his opinion of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He wrote that the United States abusing foreign policies was a partial cause of the attacks. Charged with fabrication and misinterpretation, the University of Colorado Boulder released him from his working position, dismissed for misconduct. Churchill has won a lawsuit against the university for “unlawful termination of employment” and now currently is a professor there again.
Debbie Almontaser was harshly ridiculed for defining the word “intifada” for an interview for the New York Post. She is a Yemani- American who at the time was the founding principle of the KGIA, or the Khalil Gibran International Academy of New York City. The Post was saying that she was in support of terrorist groups, and she in an agreement for an uprising in New York. She tried to sue for libel, but could not find evidence to prove her case. She claims that she was forced to resign as principle of the school. Debbie is currently charging for abuse against the First Amendment.
McCarthyism is easily an abuse of the First Amendment rights. During the Cold War, Senator McCarthy was accusing many people of plotting to overthrow the Democracy for a Communist form of government. Those who were just voicing their freedom to speak were jailed for an unjust reason, because their ideas weren't popular and were feared. Besides this, there is a case where the freedom of the press overpowers the government. In the case of the published Pentagon Papers, they described the relations with Vietnam and the reasons the United States was fighting in the Vietnam War. The Court upheld the publishing 6-3, saying that the people had the right to know about the topic, and it didn't threaten national security.
So many people have been negatively affected by the First Amendment. Those in the modern day and those throughout history have had their lives changed because of it, being a positive or negative. The numerous decipherings of the First Amendment have lead to some of the biggest controversies and questions of our modern society.
“Shouting Fire” is a 2009 documentary that is based around the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The film shows ways that the First Amendment has been challenged in various ways. The film states that our First Amendment rights are not absolute, though they are guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteThe film provides many examples of how someone’s First Amendment rights have been challenged. Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado, made unpopular comments on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Churchill stated that Americans believed they were the “innocent” and that anyone who attacks America is evil, even though America has attacked countries and killed innocent people in the past. The University stated that what Churchill said was wrong, not that he wasn’t allowed to express himself, but because as a professor, he was not allowed to make such comments. Churchill was later fired from the University of Colorado.
Another example of how someone’s First Amendment rights has been challenged is an incident involving Chase Harper, a student from San Diego that was suspended for wearing a shirt to school that on the front read, “Be Ashamed” and “Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned,” and on the back read, “Homosexuality is Shameful” and “Romans 1:27.” Harper wore the T-shirt in April in protest of the Day of Silence, a homosexual-themed event that the ADF claims was school-sponsored. Nationally, the Day of Silence is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which says that some 300,000 students participated in the event this year. Harper stated that this violated his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because he had a religious viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong. Harper took the suspension but was disappointed that no other students sided with him, saying that all the students are willing to leave their religion at the door without a fight.
I feel like this documentary was a great way to see how our rights are challenged every day. Although many of us believe that our right should be absolute, not all are. As Martin Garbus stated at the end of the film, “If You Don’t Fight for Civil Liberties, You Will Lose Them.”
The First Amendment of the Constitution grants Americans the right to freedom of speech. But this freedom is far from absolute and has many restrictions. For instance, one may not cause false panic and the media can be censored in the interest of national security. These are very understandable and rational situations. However, those who express highly unpopular or politically incorrect ideas may also be silenced. Isn’t the purpose of the First Amendment to make sure everyone can get their voices heard, even if their ideas are unpopular?
ReplyDeleteThere are many examples of the government silencing those with unpopular ideas, especially after 9/11. One example is the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, New York. Ruth Benn and Ed Hedemann were leading a peaceful march which would start at the World Trade Center and end at the Convention Center. The group would simply be walking while holding signs and posters against the war, which is a form of peaceful protest. However, not even five minutes into the march, they were corralled by police officers and were arrested. Many other arrests of this nature occurred during the Convention and by the end of the week, 1,601 arrests were made. Ninety percent of these arrests were later dismissed by the court. Still, during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, only 688 arrests were made, much lower than the 2004 Convention. The protesters had a right to make their opinions heard in a peaceful way, and this is what they were doing. The police force intruded upon their First Amendment rights in the arrests.
Chase Harper, a student at Powell High School, also had his rights infringed. During a gay and lesbian awareness event at his high school, Chase wore a T-shirt that read “Homosexuality is Shameful.” Harper was then suspended for disrupting the learning environment of the school. This was an instance where political correctness was the downfall of the freedom of speech. Students were allowed to participate in support of the event, but Chase was punished for expressing his opposition to the event. Why was Chase not allowed to express an opinion in a peaceful way like everyone else? The answer is most likely that his idea was politically incorrect and therefore, offensive to those groups. However unfair and wrong Chase’s punishment was, it was upheld in the courts.
While 9/11 was a great tragedy that brought a lot of change to the interpretation of the First Amendment, there were many controversial cases that dealt with free speech before the event. During the Red Scare, the country was caught up in “McCarthyism.” This was when the government greatly limited free speech against the government. Those with unpopular ideas were often accused of being a Socialist or Communist and jailed. This was wrong and the government took limiting free speech to the extreme. No matter how unpopular a person’s viewpoints are, they should be able to express their thoughts and opinions on an issue.
The case of the Pentagon Papers was also a heated debate over freedom of speech. While the media is generally allowed to publish virtually anything it wants, the New York Times took it too far. The newspaper had no right whatsoever to publish stolen government files. What if those papers somehow revealed information that could threaten national security? The New York Times brought the nation under much distress by publishing the papers. Not only did they possibly threaten national security, but the Times also stole the papers. It is obviously wrong to steal, so why would the Times want to go about advertising that they stole government files? Stolen files should not be allowed to be published, especially considering they were obtained illegally. When the Court decided in favor of the Times, it was a rare instance when political correctness was trumped by the First Amendment. Americans today are living in a society of the politically correct and popular, and it is very easy to see just by examining cases on the fringe of the First Amendment.
The movie "Shouting Fire" helped show the different ways that government limits certain types of free speech. There was a case where a principal, Debbie Almontaser, was fired because of an article that misinterpreted her meaning of the word "Infitada." Because of this she suffered major ridicule and was forced to resign from her job.
ReplyDeleteAnother case from this story was of Ward Churchill. He was also a professor that suffered ridicule after the attacks on 9/11. He suffered this ridicule because he stated that he thought the U.S. had a part in causing the attacks. Eventually Ward Churchill lost his job but he sued the university on the grounds of an unlawful termination.
A Third case involved a high school teen named Chase Harper. He beleived that homosexuality was a sin and so he made a shirt saying that being homosexual was shameful. The school forced him to either change his shirt or remove the writing. When he would not the expelled him. This shirt did not disrupt the learning environment it just offended one teacher.
This movie brought the realization that the first amendment is not absolute. It can change all the time according to how the government wants it. It does not seem fair to change the rules of this amendment all the time, but maybe that is why it brings about one of our countries biggest controversies. What is "free" speech?
In the movie Shouting Fire Liz Garbus addresses several issues that deal with the First Amendment and how it applies to Americans. The movie states that free speech creates a democracy. The First Amendment states that no laws shall be made abridging the rights of freedom of speech, religion, to petition, to assembly or the press. This is not true in our society today. One historic example that was stated in the movie was about McCarthyism. This was when Senator McCarthy said that many people were communist. It was during the Red Scare which was during the Cold War. He ruined many lives and even had eight teachers fired for being suspected communist. The McCarthyism outbreak eventually died down, that is until 9/11.It rose again, just in a different context. After 9/11, many people were charged with being suspected terrorists. The 9/11 scare led to a teacher being fired at the University of Boulder, Colorado. He taught his opinion of 9/11 to his students and this opinion stated that the U.S. is at fault for the attacks and that we are not innocent. Churchill, the teacher fired, said that the school was violating his First Amendment right of the freedom of speech. He said it was his opinion and he was allowed to voice his opinion. In the end, the University won and depending on who you talk to, Churchill’s freedom of speech may have been abridged.
ReplyDeleteJust because of someone’s religion, is the government allowed to take away their rights to operate a school? This happened to the founder of Khalil Gibran School in New York. Debbie was Muslim and opened a school that was not religious but its purpose was to help new Muslim immigrants and help Americans learn Arabic. Many people had the fear that she was secretly a terrorist. She had the support of the Mayor and was able to keep the school open. Then an “intifada NYC” shirt was photographed at an event that Debbie was at. Her story was taken out of proportion and many plotted against her. In the end, she stepped down from her role before she could be fired. Some can say that her freedom of religion was limited. After all, she was just trying to be a Muslim in the American society, causing harm to no one. It is a personal decision whether or not you feel that the government has the power to do this.
At Porway High School a student protested homosexuality publicly. He wrote on tape and put it on his shirt that he thought that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. The student was suspended but didn’t give up the fight. Today, the fight still continues on whether or not he is allowed to publicly express his hate of homosexuality. Are his opinions protected by the First Amendment? A classic example of the power going towards the First Amendment is during the Vietnam War. This time the press actually prevailed with the N.Y. Times suing the government. Even though the papers were labeled as top secret the press was allowed to print them because of the First Amendment.
Not all things were taken into consideration when the Bill of Rights was written. For example, after 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed allowing the president to spy on or use surveillance against suspected terrorist. The question that arises is; does the First Amendment protect these acts or do they violate it? The Supreme Court has found that it is unconstitutional to say unpopular things. Some say that this goes against the First Amendment. But, we would not be where we are today if we did not have some of our past sacrifices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDefending free speech involves defending speech of the people you hate. That statement really makes me think. We all have people that we don’t agree with. Most people have issues that they feel strongly about. I am one of these people. For example, I really hate it when people are racist. I would rather not hear racist slurs being said about people. The other side to the story though is what we usually don’t look at; they have just as much right as anyone to state their opinion, even if I think it is wrong. Theoretically, there really shall be no law abridging our First Amendment rights, just as it states.
ReplyDeleteIn Shouting Fire there were many examples of the First Amendment and how it is always changing and how it can have different interpretations. The First Amendment has never really drawn a line at what is protected and what is not. Since the amendment is always being carried out in different ways there are many causes with the First Amendment being the main star it the case. Some might say that the First Amendment is a cornerstone of democracy.
ReplyDeleteThis movie makes you think critically about cases, what the amendment really means, and what you would have done in some of these situations. In Harper v. Powel Unified School District Chase Harper was told to either remove his tape or go to the office due to the saying written on the tape. He chose to go to the office and after got suspended due to his offensive remark on his shirt. Due to him being in school his freedom of speech did have limitations. When Debbie Almontaser was getting ready to open KGIA she gave an interview and the reporter twisted her words around, making her words a lie. Debbie was attacked in several articles that were written. Debbie was made to step down as principal of the school and then went to court accusing the reporter of violating the First Amendment.
One of the most surprising cases was Ward Churchill’s. After 9/11 he wrote an article and some people did not agree with it. The university he worked for launched a special examination on him. When the university thought they had enough evidence to take him to court they did. Ward Churchill was found guilty on seven different accounts. Another shocking case was the Pentagon Papers. This involved the leaking of classified articles from the Pentagon. These papers showed information on the real reason the state went to war. It showed that the government lied to the people to persuade them towards the war effort. Once these articles were leaked the New York Times printed them without anyone knowing. The New York Times told no one of this because they knew that if someone knew that somehow the articles would have not been printer.
There are many more cases dealing with the First Amendment both now and in the past. These cases should make people think more about our rights and how they can be limited but if we don’t fight for our rights we won’t have them at the end of the day. But yet again we should not have to fight for our rights and if there are consequences to these then they’re really not free. Everyone should think about what we can and cannot do. Are we really free at the end of the day? You are the one to choose.
In the documentary, “Shouting Fire” the director, Liz Garbus, shows us how the First Amendment has been interpreted throughout history. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition but the interpretation of these freedoms has changed from the beginning when it was ratified to today, post 9/11. The cases that the movie talked about were cases that it seemed people had their First Amendment rights either limited or denied by the government. The thesis of this movie seemed to be that people’s First Amendment rights could be blocked if they went against what was “politically correct”.
ReplyDeleteThe first story that seemed to support this thesis was the story about Ward Churchill, a college professor at Colorado-Boulder. In some of his classes he began to talk about how the attack on 9/11 may not have been such an innocent attack against the United States. For speaking his opinion, since it wasn’t the opinion of others, the school was pushed by government officials to try to get him fired for “academic misconduct”. A historical example of a case like this would be during the Vietnam War when the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the public. The government wanted to limit the speech of people so they could try to hide the truth about the war and why it really started. Ward won his case and in the case of the Pentagon Papers, the people won against the government.
The first reason is just one of the few examples of limiting people’s First Amendment rights in a post 9/11 world. Another case that was talked about was Debbie Almontaser and the dual-language school. The school was going to be a bi-language school, (Arabic and English) until the press began processing stories that were not fully true. The stories would talk about how the school was raising terrorists and tied Debbie to a t-shirt that included an Arabic word, intifada, and tried to close the school before it even opened. Because of these stories, Debbie’s reputation was destroyed and was forced to resign because the press released false stories. A historical example like Debbie’s was during the Cold War when Senator McCarthy began his searches for communists in America. He destroyed many peoples’ reputations because he accused them of being communists and like the press, made false accusations about the people.
These two stories are just two examples of how people’s First Amendment rights were limited because what they said or what they stood for wasn’t “politically correct”. When people speak out against the government for their beliefs, like Chase Harper and his anti-homosexuality shirt, their rights can be limited because the government says they are violating someone else’s rights. The government’s interpretation is constantly changing and because of this, there will never be a standard or a line for how the government can limit your rights.
This documentary “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech” is about the first amendment. There are several cases were your first amendment rights are restricted in the video. The first amendment has five things in it that are guaranteed, they are Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assembly. This video show where these right can be limited which makes them not absolute. Some cases where rights were limited were Debbie Almontaser, Ward Churchill, protester, Chase Harper, McCarthyism and the Pentagon Papers.
ReplyDeleteDebbie Almontaser was treated wrongly. She was describing the root for Intifada a word from the Arabic language and her words got twisted around and was fired. This is not right because it is libel and she should not of got fired for it. Ward Churchill was asked to write his opinion of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He wrote that the U.S. abusing foreign policies is part of the cause of the attack and was fired for misconduct. He won the lawsuit against the school. There were protesters protesting peacefully on the side walk and they were not even there for 5 minutes, and they got blocked on the sidewalk and arrested. This is uncalled for because it goes directly against the right to petition.
Chase Harper was a boy that was treated unfairly, all he did was write on tape and stick it to his shirt, it said “Homosexuality is Shameful” and was suspended. The school had no proof that the shirt was distracting or offensive they just suspended him. I don’t agree with what the school did and that it is unconstitutional. Senator McCarthy accused people of supporting communism and the communist movement. That treated freedom of speech because people were accused by what they said. New York Times was sued of publishing things from the Pentagon that were confidential known as the Pentagon Papers case. This went against there freedom of the press and the case went to the Supreme Court.
All these have to deal with the first amendment being restricted. It is a good thing that people stand up for their selves and speak out in what they believe. If they did not do this then our first amendment rights would be limited a lot more then they are right now. These incidents also show that the first amendment is limited and not absolute.
The film/documentary "Shouting Fire", a woman named Liz Garbus documents examples relatively recent examples of restrictions being placed on American's first Amendment rights-freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assembly. The documentay shows the various ways in which "freedom" of speech has been supressed, and how if a person wants freedom, they have to fight for it every day.It is generally agreed that in times of war, and thus panic, freedom of speech is even more so restricted.
ReplyDeleteThe film contains both historical examples of government supression and more modern examples. The historical examples include students wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam, and McCarthyism. While it was ruled to be okay for the students to wear their armbands, McCarthyism is an abuse of First Amendment rights. If speech damages a person's reputation/ credibility, it is illegal, and rightly so. Senator McCarthy would call out people for being suspected communists during the Red Scare. His accusations held little to no evidence, and ruined many peoples' lives.
What if ideas are unpopular and cause hurt feelings? This question was raised in Ward Churchill's case and Chase Harper's case. Mr. Churchill was a professor at Colorado University at Boulder. His views and expressions regarding 9/11 were considered insensitive. He stated that perhaps the "terrorist"'s motives were not senseless acts, and perhaps they had sound reason for attacking America. Churchill was fired for his comments regarding the issue, all for speaking his mind in a nonviolent way.
The other situation, Chase Harper, dealth with a student making a shirt criticizing homosexuality. Chase's school (located in Poway, California) told him his shirt was offensive and had to be removed. If Chase's shirt was not targeting a specific individual, nor was it vulgar/obscene, then why must it be hidden? Can only ideas that everyone agrees with and supports be freely expressed? Poway High School seems to think so...
If a person supports the free speech of individuals, then they thus must support the speech of people they disagree with. If you disagree with a person, perhaps are even offended by a person, you should still support that person in expressing what they believe in and how they feel. Assuming, of couse, you are an advocate of free speech. If a person wishes to silence hateful or ignorant speech, then they go against the First Amendment rights they say they support.
Shouting Fire represents how the meaning of the First Amendment can be interpreted in many ways, from court cases, to protesting, to something as simple as writing on a shirt. Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, its meaning has been ever changing. And every time, it can be interpreted differently.
ReplyDeleteThe first court case that proves how the meaning of the first amendment can be interpreted in different ways is Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, John Tinker was charged for wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War, and the students were charged for doing this. The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker’s favor saying that the armbands were quiet and passive; they were not disruptive and did not interfere with the rights of others. Also the court said that the armbands were a form of expression of opinion, and that if it did not interfere with school work, then it was protected.
Another area of the First Amendment that has been interpreted differently is right to protest. An example of this would be the 2004 Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. While protestors were marching down a city street, they were stopped, and then arrested. The protesters were not doing anything, illegal, just simply expressing their opinions. But the police thought that they were dangerous, and felt the need to arrest them. This is a violation of the First Amendment because it states that we have the right to protest. This shows how the meaning of the First Amendment changes because some people interpret it very broadly, and some very narrowly, like the NYC police.
First Amendment rights can deal with things as small as something written on your shirt. A student of Poway Unified School district went to school with a bible verse taped to the back of his shirt, condemning homosexuals. The student was exercising his right of free speech, but others felt as though this should not be protected under the First Amendment, which is an example of how it can be interpreted differently.
Shouting Fire is the perfect example of how the First Amendment is always being interpreted differently. First Amendment can be limited and expanded, depending on many factors, such as issue, time, and location. Shouting Fire is the perfect example of how the First Amendment is never interpreted the same way twice.
I believe this may be, in fact, the most intriguing documentary I have every witnessed. It thoroughly and correctly displays how post-9/11 paranoia caused distorted emotions and feelings towards certain ethnic groups. For instance, Debbie Almontaser had to go through a plethora of criticism when she applied to be the principal of Khalil Gibran International Academy. Just because she was suspected of affiliation with a shirt that said “intifada”, people used it to justify a full-on attack on her. Nothing remotely connects the shirt to her besides the presence of it at one of her sponsored events. People, such as Daniel Pipes, use stereotypical arguments in a paranoid fashion to violently shun someone who has done nothing wrong. Had she been connected to the “intifada” shirt, she still would have been protected under the First Amendment. Such is overlooked in these matters, thus otherwise, she would have been victorious in her battle for principal. I don’t see the reason of those against the school in this case.
ReplyDeleteAnother incident involving the First Amendment is in the case of Ward Churchill. This subject, also intertwined with the paranoid mindset after September 11th, is overlooked as well. When Churchill wrote his essay regarding 9-11, he was unfairly treated for voicing his opinion. Regardless, his essay did not threaten national security or the wellbeing of others and therefore, he is protected under the First Amendment. CU-Boulder (The University of Colorado at Boulder) had no right to remove his as a professor at their university. It makes no sense whatsoever, in my opinion for them to fire him. He had every right to say what he said. CU-Boulder did not even use his 9-11 essay to justify his dismissal. Rather, they looked through his previous documents and declared them to be the source of his job termination. This goes to show that the First Amendment is not flawless. CU-Boulder proved that you could get around it when they determined the reason for him to be let go from his position.
Chase Harper had his First Amendment rights violated as well. I do not think it was right for him to lose the battle against his freedom to wear the shirt he wishes. I do, however, feel that if it disrupts the education process, the shirt should be outlawed, regardless of its contents. This expresses what happened in Churchill’s case. In both cases, different reason are given for the court decision. In this case, it was determined to have disrupted the education process. I understand that if it disrupts the education process, it very well has the right to removal, and it seems to be the culprit in the case. I still feel that since nobody else commented on the shirt, it did indeed not interrupt the education process and therefore he may choose to wear it.
The subjects of these three cases all represent one thing. They lost a case when their rights were protected under the First Amendment. Whatever the case may be, I think that we must respect freedom of speech and decide the case in those terms. It must be understood that freedom is a costly privilege. Some may think that it is automatically and permanently founded in the Constitution. Truth be told, we must fight for it every day.
The interpretation of the First Amendment, or, more specifically, how absolute Freedom of Speech is, has morphed over the years. This has been shown in cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines and Texas v. Johnson. Theses cases and other cases similar to these also helped to establish what was protected under the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteIn the documentary "Shouting Fire," director Liz Garbus analyzes the morphing of the absolute garuntee of Freedom of Speech, or the lack thereof. The documentary unearths the harsh reality of how our freedom of sppech isn't free.
In the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, a high school student was punished for wearing an armband as a protest to the war. Tinker won the case, with the Court stating that it was symbolic speech, which is protected under the first amendment. A high school student wore a anti-homosexual T-shirt on a school recognized "day of silence" on protest to homosexuality and was punished for it. This should be protected under symbolic sppech, however, the courts thought differently.
As we all know, in America, the unofficial primary language is English. However, when a Arab-English school was beginning its implementation in New York, it was heavily criticized. When Debbie Almonaster, the principal to be, spoke on the matter, her words were taken out of context and used against her and the school. She does not have a libel case against the media, however, because she is a "public figure," which gives her less rights. Why is it that we can so easily close our mind to the new; so easily contradict our wants and expectations of society?
I belive Garbus hit the nail on the head. Freedom of Speech isn't free; we must fight for it everyday. It is most certainly not absolute; there are exceptions and loop holes everywhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary has, if I can goes as far as saying, opened my eyes to how many different interpretations the First Amendment has gone through. Liz Garbus directs this film, and interviews many people that have different views on free speech, and have defended them claiming first amendment rights. There are main court cases that are reviewed and analyzed in the film. Due to acts that have been put in place, and some repealed. The definition of freedom of speech has changed. For instance the Patriot Act says that if it threatens national security, free speech can be limited. Other ways are inducing panic, like the court case Schenck v. United States ruled, can be a limit on free speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s arguement in this case was that falsely "shouting fire" in a crowded theater may cause panic and should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteOne recent case (which is a main topic in the movie) is when Ward Churchill wrote controversial papers on the 9/11 attacks, and was fired from his position of professor at University of Colorado. He spoke his mind in a non-violent way, so he sued the University saying their firing him on those grounds violated his first amendment rights. He won and was later reinstated to the university. Another case was when Debbie Almontaser, the principal of a bi-lingual Arab school in New York was accused of being a terrorist. The press begin trying to publish articles, saying she was tied to terrorist organizations, and that she had a hidden interfaith curriculum. The press destroyed her reputation so bad; Ms. Almontaser was forced to step down as an administrator. This is a prime example of McCarthyism. This term was coined back during the start of the Cold War when Sen. Joseph McCarthy accused many people of being Communists, and destroyed many reputations in the community. Some people don't realize that this is happening today, and discriminate against all Arab peoples; claiming/thinking they are terrorists.
Free speech can be limited, but only at times when it is appropriate. This is where it gets controversial. When is appropriate to limit free speech? For some people, it's not at all. Others say if there is danger involved. Whatever the viewpoint, people will always defend their right to use it, and as Martin Garbus said, "You've got to defend, it every single day."
“Congress shall make no law”. These are the five words that Americans are most familiar with when dealing with the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First amendment goes on to say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even though the first amendment guarantees your right to these five freedoms, it is always limited in some way, especially during a time of war or fear. A prime example of this would be the Red Scare, which took place from 1947 to the late 1950s.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Red Scare, Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin, wrongfully accused people of being communist, and charged them as being communist or even soviet spies; for fear that communism would spread as a result of the Cold War. Many people were sent to prison because of this, even though there was not any evidence to convict them. This became known as McCarthyism.
A modern issue concerning this would be the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Twin Towers. After this incident occurred, the government restricted many rights of citizens including their freedom of speech. There are also many cases that pertain to the first amendment. And one of the most famous cases is Churchill v. University of Colorado.
Churchill v. University of Colorado was also a case concerning the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. After Ward Churchill wrote an essay, based off of his opinion, concerning the motive as to why that attacks took place, the University Administration started a private investigation of his researching methods. He was later released from the University and he then filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado. After the lawsuit took place, he was found guilty on seven accounts. Now the question is whether they actually believe that he had bad researching methods, or the government just did not want that kind of free speech to be viewed by public eyes, because it could have created many problems within the United States. This is also a case that exhibits the limitations on free speech.
Almontaser v. New York City Department of Education is another example of the limitations that the government puts on First Amendment rights. Debbie was the founding principal of the KGIA (Khalil Gibran International Academy). The KGIA was a dual language school for Arabic Students. This was a public school that was introduced for the help of Arabic speaking students still learning the English language. But, the actual controversy arose over a t-shirt that was created by the AWAAM (Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media). The t-shirt itself said, “intifada NYC”. The New York Times asked to have an interview with Debbie, and she agreed. The reporter asked her what ‘intifada’ actually meant, and she told them that it simply meant “shaking off”. But this word has revolved overtime to the meaning of “uprising”. The New York Times starting attacking Debbie by publishing untruthful information.. Debbie eventually had to resign as the principal of the KGIA. If we recap on this situation, we will realize that Debbie lost her job because of what a shirt said, and then refused to take her word when she said that she has been involved with nothing. This is an example of how freedom of speech and religion were being limited.
Another case that would relate to Almontaser v. New York Department of Education would be Schenk v. United States (1919). In this case, a man burned draft cards, protesting the war. The government sued him, and declared that this man did not have the First Amendment protection of free speech against this act. And, they also concluded that this was an act of espionage. Since then, the government has changed their view, and has decided that it is protected by the First Amendment.
Another case that would relate to Almontaser v. New York Department of Education would be Schenk v. United States (1919). In this case, a man burned draft cards, protesting the war. The government sued him, and declared that this man did not have the First Amendment protection of free speech against this act. And, they also concluded that this was an act of espionage. Since then, the government has changed their view, and has decided that it is protected by the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteA major case concerning the freedom of religion and speech would be Harper v. Poway Unified School District. In this case, a student named Chase Harper wrote a bible verse on a shirt and wore it to school, expressing that homosexuality is wrong. He was sent to the office because of this, and they then proceeded to suspend Chase, and also threatened to expel him. Poway High School censored this young man for no reason. He was simply wearing a shirt that expressed his opinion, and was not causing any violence to take place within the school. Above all that, there were not any complaints about his shirt from students that could be homosexual or not. Chase Harper ultimately won this case.
Another example of a nation spread war effort would be the Vietnam War. Some Americans believed that the participation of the United States in the Vietnam War was un-American and was not patriotic, and many Americans also questioned why were there. And, a case concerning this problem is called the New York Times v. United States. In this case, a former senator named Daniel Ellsberg decided to release classified information concerning that reasons as to why the United States was in Vietnam fighting a war. This was the first time in the nation that classified information to this degree had been released for public view. Nixon’s Administration tried to stop these papers from being published in the New York Times, but the newspaper sued the United States explaining that publishing this information was protected by their First Amendment protections. Eventually, the New York Times won the case and the information was published.
Although many cases do concern the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion, we still do have our occasional case about the limits of freedom to peacefully assemble. The Big Chill was a protest group that came to New York City to protest against the War that was taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to promote peace. It was a very large group of pacifists and only after five minutes of walking down the streets in the city, the NYPD started taping the protest group to remain by the side of the road, and the NYPD arrested around eight hundred people. The presidents of the organization are now suing the NYPD for the violation of their First Amendment rights. Also, the Patriot Act was announced after the bombings of September 11, 2001. Here the Bush administration was able to receive citizens’ private information and be put under surveillance without their consent, if they were suspected to be a terrorist.
Many people believe that infringements to the First Amendment rights have no military value at all, and people also believe that attacks on free speech do not always come from the government, but other places. And, even though we as citizens have to suffer from a lot to protect our freedom of our First Amendment rights, if it was not for the people that have fought over and over throughout history, then we would not enjoy the free speech that we do today.
Director Liz Garbus directs the HBO documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech. The purpose of the movie was to inform viewers that our first amendment; the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition is limited. To prove this, the movie goes into detail and gives examples such as court cases which involve whenever someone’s right to the first amendment was violated. With that being said, the main idea is the idea of the first amendment and issues that have been debated about it or major issues that have dealt with it. So the question is, is the first amendment free?
ReplyDeleteThe historical examples provided in the film were McCarthyism, the Pentagon Papers, and Charles Schenck. McCarthyism is the political practice of making accusations of disloyalty or treason without proper regard for evidence. The Pentagon Papers dealt with when Daniel Ellsberg leaked papers that discussed our role in the Vietnam War, the papers were first showed to the public on the front page of the New York Times. This questioned whether their right to freedom of press would be protected by the first amendment instead of being violated. In the end New York Times won the case. Schenck v. United States was a court case dealing with Charles Schenck being charged for handing out leaflets opposing the draft that impeded the war efforts. The question in this situation was if Schenck’s actions were protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment. Schenck lost the case because the government can limit the situation if it presents clear and present danger.
Some modern examples were Ward Churchill, a professor who taught ethnic studies at the University of Colorado and was fired after writing an article about 9/11. Another example is when Debbie Almontaser resigned from the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a dual language program in NYC, after being harassed from the press. Tyler Chase Harper was suspended from his school for wearing a black t-shirt with tape on it discussing and protesting gays. The protestors in the 2008 Republican National Convention is a modern example given in the movie, there were 688 people arrested at the convention, which questioned if the protestors first amendment to assemble.
The director has accomplished her purpose because to me her goal was to get a point across that our first amendment is violated in many ways and it is not necessarily “freedom” of speech, assembly, press, petition, and religion, when it is obviously limited. Also the director has accomplished something with me, as a viewer by making me realize how and what the first amendment really stands for.
“America, where we have the freedom to think, say or create anything. It’s a miracle.” The movie “Shouting Fire” explores how differently the First Amendment can be interpreted. In the United States history there have been endless amounts of court cases, arguments, laws passed, and the crushing of people’s lives all due to the Freedom of Speech. What is the Freedom of Speech? What does it protect? What does it mean to you? What does it mean to someone across the country? Even better, what does the government say it means? All of these questions proposed are never answered. The questions are left ignored and hanging, leaving our society lost and confused as to what rights we actually have. It leaves us furious and determined to get answers. This movie takes us through a few court cases showing how corrupted the First Amendment really it.
ReplyDeleteShockingly, before 9/11 20% of Americans thought the First Amendment went too far. Now, 50% thinks this. Our country has changed. We have been through a lot so it is understandable. The McCarthy Hearing was restricting people from trying to exercise free speech. It tries to call men communists with no logical reason. McCarthy was against teachers, for simply teaching. A current case of the same situation is the case of Ward Churchill. February 2005 would forever change Churchill’s life. Churchill has the belief that maybe the attacks on the trade center were an act of “Karma”, or payback. He taught that the American’s were not innocent and we should not be angry this happened to us, we “asked for it.” His every word ever written or said was investigated, how is there any “Freedom of Speech” there? Being found guilty on seven accounts, Ward Churchill was fired from his job at the University of Colorado.
Debbie Almontaster was a teacher in New York City for years. Debbie was originally from another country. She was targeted as a “pro-terrorist” after 9/11. She was removed from the school she was hoping to be the principle of when she simply defined a word. Her words were twisted and misused. However, as always Americans and officials believed the press. She gave the definition of “Intifada” and was destroyed. Her school to open was now being called a Madrassa. She was forced to resign after this. This was unlawful in my eyes. Another case we were exposed to was the case about Chase Harper’s t-shirt. The shirt read, “Be ashamed, homosexuality is shameful” with a few other phrases. Not one student complained, but a teacher sent Chase to the office. He ended up in court and then being found guilty. This case related back to the case of the two students wearing black arm bands anti-Vietnam and being suspended.
800 protesters treated like cattle. In 2004 these protesters were there for 5 minutes tops. Police drastically came in and herded the people with an orange fence. This is ridiculous and unjust. Protest is supposed to be protected under our rights, so why does the government not follow through? This movie really opened my eyes as to what goes on and we don’t see the other side of. Something needs to be changed. Our rights are being maliciously destroyed.
In times of war, the government limits free speech. Before the 9/11 attacks, 20% of Americans believed that the First Amendment allows too much. After the 9/11 attacks, that number rose to 50%.
ReplyDeleteThe Shouting Fire documentary dealt with the violation of the First Amendment. Ward Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado. He made comments about the possible reasoning of 9/11. Those comments were posted on the internet shortly after the towers fell. He was fired for research misconduct after all of his speeches and lessons were investigated, “If something has consequences, it is not free,” Churchill said, referring to his speech. The reason he was fired violated his First Amendment because he was fired simply because of something that he said, no based on his teaching ability. It would have been much different if he wasn’t considered a public official.
In the film, Chase Harper, a student at Poway High School in San Diego, was suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful”. He wore the shirt during an event supporting gays and lesbians. This shirt did not offend other students. He was suspended because it was disrupting the education of others. I think this is completely unfair. Chase should have been able to wear the shirt. It supported his religion and he was expressing his right to both religion and protest. It was a peaceful protest and did not offend or distract other students. I would have been very upset if I was Chase.
Also in the film, Ruth Benn and Ed Hedemann were among hundreds of people arrested for marching by the Republican National Convention held in New York City. They only got to march for about 5 minutes before they were detained. The group arrested was protesting against the War in Iraq. This tests the First Amendment’s right to press.
The First Amendment is controversial and will continue to be fought over for many years. The freedom of speech is interpreted different ways. The freedoms granted to the citizens in the First Amendment are not absolute and can be limited.
Shouting Fire
ReplyDeleteThe movie Shouting Fire explores the First Amendment and shows what America thinks about freedom of speech. Everyone have a different interpretation and way of expressing freedom of speech. America is selfish. People don’t want their ideas limited but when it comes to other people its fine. There has been a percent increase in the amount of people who believe the First Amendment goes too far. Before 9/11 there were 20% of people who believed it went too far and after 9/11 there were 50%.
Its also interesting how individuals or groups can express their opinion and then a little later they can be jobless, suspended or arrested. One example is Ward Churchill. Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. After 9/11 he suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was not a senseless act and the United States brought it on them. This caused major controversy. Some people said he is committing treason for saying this. Churchill was then fired from being a professor. I do not understand this. We have groups protesting about dead soldiers from the war and people can’t express their opinion.
When the nation is at war or in a period of crisis, there is a difference on our civil liberties. The Patriot Act in which the Bush administration passed on the wake of 9/11 had restrictions on our civil liberties. It increased the government power to survey citizens. Today restrictions on free speech come from private sector. This is where organizations will react or overreact to speech and crackdown. In the past it is a different story. During the Vietnam War, World War II, World War I and the McCarthy era in the Cold War there were government hearings instead of what is done today. Marching against the war in the Vietnam War was said to be unpatriotic and the Pentagon Papers were a test of the First Amendment. Also a Nazi leader once said “Freedom exists to those who will fight for it.”
Debbie Almontaser, an Arab-American educator, was a principal in New York City at the Khalil Gilbran International Academy. This offered a dual language program where students can learn Arabic or English. The New York post twisted remarks she had made about the meaning of intifada or an uprising of pro violence. There was no libel and since it was protected Debbie was forced to resign as principal. This just shows that we do have freedom of speech in this country but in times of our country being threatened we don’t. Chase Harper, a conservative, white, Christian teen attends high school in California. He was suspended for wearing a shirt with a Bible verse and the words, “Homosexuality is shameful” to school. There was no proof that Chase was a distraction to the students that day and there had been no complaints but Chase was still suspended.
There were about 800 people arrested at the Republican Convention Center. They had planned to march from the World Trade Center to the convention center but that didn’t happen. After about five minutes they were stopped and arrested. This just comes to show how much the freedom of speech is restricted. You cannot incite violence, chaos, or disruption. You have to ask yourself where the line is drawn with restrictions on free speech. Garbus also talks about how the United States is going to be stuck with a court that’s unlikely to offer much in the way of protection for freedom of expression.
The movie Shouting Fire is all about how people view their freedom of speech. It shows that you really can’t say whatever you want. Some people think they can say what they want when they want and that’s not the case. The government has placed some limitations on our right to free speech. Here are some cases and my opinions to them.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with how that lady went to the funeral and said that since their son was in the war he supported homosexual marriages. I feel like that is not moral. Yes she has the right to say that stuff, but why would you want to put a parent through that emotional distress. She assumed that anyone that goes to war for the United States of America supports gay rights.
When the kid got suspended for putting anti homosexual writing on his shirt, I feel like the school did that just so they wouldn’t get in trouble. There was no proof of him distracting school. He was only expressing how he feels on the subject. He did not say anything to discriminate against them except that the lord did not support that. People are making way to big of a deal about small problems. The kid didn’t do anything wrong he just wanted to show people how he feels.
It also shows that you can get in trouble a few years after you make a remark. For example the case about Ward Churchill. He was a professor at the University of Colorado. Churchill wrote that 9/11 was brought on us by our self. He was later fired from being a professor. I do not see why he was fired. There are worse cases than this and he is the one who gets in trouble. Churchill did not threaten national security or try to give any private information out; he was just expressing his opinion.
Another case involves an Arab principal from New York. She wore a shirt that said intifada on it and the New York Post asked Debbie what that word means to her. The New York post twisted her words around and made it seem like she was pro-violent. They limited her right to speech because it was a threat to national security even though she never said anything about being violent, the paper just made it seem that way.
The film focuses on both examples from the past and current day examples of how the 1st amendment has been used to define society. But I think in a way the government is a bit hypocritical. They say that the 1st amendment is the most important and citizens can’t be denied their free speech, but yet in some cases they deny people their right. The government is slowly taking away our first amendment rights. The film showed and explained some good cases.
ReplyDeleteOne case from the video was about a student who wore a basic t-shirt to school that had a piece of tape on it. On the piece of tape it that expressed his opinion on how he’s against gays. He was suspended for the shirt and the school sent a sheriff to talk to him. He felt it was unconstitutional because no one had said the shirt offended them and he was just expressing his opinion. It was considered hate words and threatened gays who went to that school. The school took away his free speech but I think it was for a good cause because what he had on his shirt did target others at his school in a negative way and probably was a distraction.
Another case was soon after 9/11 after the terrorist attacks. A Arabian teacher wanted to open a new high school for Arabs in New York. The people local to the school felt that the school would be teaching violence. A blogger wrote that the Arabian principal was for violence because she supported violence. She said that she had nothing to do with shirts. The media persecuted her and she ended up dropping the job. It was never proven and I feel it isn’t right for the media to harass her how they did without any proof she was a violent person.
I feel the that the government tries to take away and limit our first amendment rights. And if they take that away from us, they take away all our other rights fromus because without the first amendment, you can’t fight for your other freedoms
Shouting Fire, a great movie to show how America considers freedom of speech. Every one in this country believes in this freedom and expresses it but once an opposing group stands out all hell breaks loose. Through this movie I’ve noticed that if one group has different ideas we want to limit there freedom of speech but yet keep our own. For example Ward Churchill commenting on the 9/11 attacks by pretty much saying karma just hit us for all the deeds we have done in this world. People said he is committing treason by saying we had this attack coming to us, and Ward Churchill was fired from his job. So speaking of karma is treason but yet you have a protest group saying “thank god for dead soldiers”, talking about American troops, but yet there just practicing freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteWe do notice that freedom of speech does get limited during time of war, for instance Debbie Almontaser from New York city had to step down from her position as principle of a Islamic school (did not teach religion) because at a convention of hers some one sold shirts saying Intifada (uprising) NYC. Intifada is commonly used in the Middle East to start up uprisings and after 9/11 I can see where the concerns come from. This won’t be the first time things like this happened, during WWII we took Japanese Americans and put them in camps because we don’t want to get the enemy confused with normal people. But a reporter did use words out of text from an interview with Debbie when she talked about the shirts so I honestly don’t understand how that did not go down as libel. Yes we have freedom of speech but sometimes it gets thrown under the bus when our country becomes threatened.
A teenager decided to put an anti homosexual statement on tap and tapped it onto his shirt and he was suspended from school. But yet there was no proof of him being a distraction in school or any complaints about the shirt, so why did he get suspended? Why should he get suspended when in Tinker v. Des Moines the trail let a group of students where black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War? Those arm bands did a lot more distraction then this shirt. Why can we let a student protest a war but not homosexuality?
Finally the Patriot Act and the freedom of privacy. Honestly during time of war and terrorism I strongly believe the government should extend powers to help catch these people who want to threat America. The government is not tapping every ones phone line just suspected people, so what is so wrong about that. I feel that privacy should be limited if it helps prevent another tragedy. You still have your right to privacy it’s just the American government wants to protect America.
Pretty much the thing I got from this movie is, people only want to hear there ideas and want to silence others, and that some people are just idiots.